Many Historians have said that Lincoln used and abused too much Power as President! Was he Dictatorial and were there other Presidents who were as Powerful?

Herb: That's exactly what so many that I have talked with over the years believe about Lincoln. They say he violated his powers as president, started an unnecessary war, and invaded the South. They view Lincoln as a tyrant who greatly expanded the government- this thinking is not new. Most of them don't care to discuss the issue of slavery. Some of them say slavery was a "good" that brought a level of prosperity they would not have otherwise had. I guess the Civil War really never ended.

Herb,

My problem with the word "dictatorial" comes with its obvious pejorative nature. To call Lincoln a dictator implies that his actions were the work of a tyrant seeking power for his own sake with no regard for those he led. I simply don't agree with that. There can be no question that Lincoln did things that would be extra-legal in time of peace. However, the country was not at peace. Faced with an ongoing and flagrant internal threat, Lincoln did what he had to do to see the crisis through. And it should not be forgotten that Congress gave his actions their retroactive stamp of approval.

In 1929 James G. Randall wrote "Lincoln in the Role of Dictator" for the South Atlantic Quarterly (reprinted in Lincoln's American Dream edited by Kenneth L. Deutsch and Joseph R. Fornieri from where I take my quotes). In it, he expanded on an idea he first broached in Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln. In the article, Randall first went through the bill of particulars against Lincoln, and then point by point refuted the charge that Lincoln indeed was like a dictator, at least as his early 20th century countrymen understood the term. I won't go into great detail on Randall's article, but a few points merit mention.

First, Randall acknowledged that during the time previous to the Civil War, "the Lincoln administration was departing from established precedent." However, Lincoln regretted that this was necessary. Randall argued that Lincoln was "solicitous to preserve constitutional restraints" although Randall admitted that "Infraction of the Constitution was one of the many unfortunate concomitants of civil war." But Randall pointed out that Lincoln could have gone much further, and indeed was urged to by others in his own party and outside the government. "Yet even here we should remember that, amid the war psychology of the 1860s, Lincoln would have found Congressional and popular support in considerable degree for more drastic action than he actually took."

Second, Randall pointed out that Lincoln submitted to popular election during the midst of the war, and even made preparations for what he believed to be his likely defeat by George McClellan in 1864. Someone who thirsts for the power of a dictator would have never even allowed for the holding of an election, but that didn't fit Lincoln's temperament.

I believe Randall summed it up best in CPUL when he said that if Lincoln was to be called a dictator, at least he was a benevolent one. Lincoln, Randall argued, used his war powers like the surgeon's knife, which he said cuts in order to save.

And Lincoln, given his strong belief that popular government could not be proven "absurd" made the point I will close with. "And this issue embraces more than the fate of these United States. it presents to the whole family of man the question whether a constitutional republic, or democracy--a government of the people by the same people--can or cannot maintain its territorial integrity against its own domestic foes...It forces us to ask: 'Is there in all republics this inherent and fatal weakness?' Must a government of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?"

Best
Rob

Herb: I'm not sure where you mean by "Red-Neck" country. My folks are from Tennessee. When I go "back home" to visit relatives- I don't talk about Lincoln. Generally speaking, they hate him. I suspect that racism under-girds their negative emotion. They do not feel that way about any of the other presidents-only Lincoln.

Oh boy-not sure I want to visit "deliverance country!"

Scuse me while I put down my banjo and take another swig from the jug before I answer your question. Opps, you'll have to wait, mamma needs some meat for tonites stew, so Old Red and I gotta go hunt some squirell and possum.

A "red-neck" is a derogatory term to refer to poor, white uneducated farmers, usually in the south. A sense of bigotry has been added to the definition over the years,
usually by educated, but lacking common sense, liberal minded people. The term originaly reffered to farmers who toiled under the hot sun and the back of their neck would get seriously sun burned. In some places it is a term of pride to indicate a hard working, man of the soil who desires to live a simple life,

Better bring my bow and arrows!

I also heard that the term 'red neck' came from old coal mining wars [Molly Maguires etc] where the miners would wear red bandanas around their necks so when the fights started they could tell who was who and not shoot the wrong person.

I just hope I don't hear any banjo music tonite........

Bill,I am sorry if that offended you.My experience with "Red-Necks"has been the "good old boys"with rifles on the back of their pickup truck windows who openly use the-N-word and belittle other-races-religions-and nationalities.

I am not offended. Most "red necks" aren't bigots. The deffinition has changed over time, and means different things to different people.

Gene,Thanks for clearing that up for me! I have had to mediate issues between Skinheads and minorities.That is where my sesitivity comes from!

Herb: no, i'm not offended at all. My roots are Tennessee. My grandma lived in a tin-roof shack with railroad tracks running behind it. Had to be careful when in the backyard-rattlers frequented the area. I have more than a dozen ancestors that served in Confederate service. My love for Lincoln is tolerated because they love me: "Must be because he lives in Michigan now"

Thanks-Bill.I grew up in the-inner-city of Rochester,NY.Railroad tracks in the back yard-The Genesee River behind them."White Kid from the other side of the tracks".I never did well with Tyrants-Bullies-and Bigots. I am really down on "Social Injustice".

I hear you Herb- "We've come a long way." Although I kinda miss hearing that old train blow his whistle every night as it passed gram's shack. It was comforting. Last time I went there the tracks were being pulled up-train don't run through no more.

Getting back to the original question, Lincoln may very well be considered America's dictator. But he doesn't deserve that label.

As Rob Wick pointed out so well, he took emergency measures in a critical time to preserve the country. Once the emergency was over, those measures were relaxed.

A difficult decision to make, when do the rights of a few have to be taken away to preserve the rights and/or safety of the majority. The powers of the govenment shoud be used to protect it's citizens, not to protect its politicians (from its citizens), and not to protect our enemies. Abraham Lincoln seemed to know where to draw that line.